The Kerala High Court opined that it is not necessary that every time a point is raised regarding mental incapacity, the Court should hold an elaborate enquiry. Only when the Court itself has serious doubt, a detailed and proper enquiry should be conducted.
As per Section 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) it must appear to the Court that the Accused is of unsound mind. The emphasis was placed on the word “appears”. There must be some circumstance that indicates to the Court that the Accused is of unsound mind and hence, would not be able to make his defence.
In the present case, the Accused actively participated in the trial and answered all questions under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, no circumstance could indicate the unsoundness of the Accused. Hence, the Trial Court was right when it recorded that no enquiry under Section 329 was required.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner was facing charges under the Protection of Children Against Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
During the trial, when the matter was posted for defence evidence, an application was filed by the Petitioner pleading that he was mentally incapable of understanding the consequences of his act, therefore, a medical examination was requested.
The Prosecution objected to the application and argued that there was nothing on record to prove that Petitioner suffered from mental incapacity.
The Trial Court passed an order stating that Petitioner was free to make the mental condition a defence, however, no medical enquiry was warranted in the present case.
Hence, the present case.
Observations of the Court:
The relevant issue was whether the Court is bound to conduct a detailed enquiry whenever the Accused raises a point of unsound mind.
As per Section 329 of the Cr.P.C., it must appear to the Court that the Accused is of unsound mind. The emphasis was placed on the word “appears”. There must be some circumstance which indicates to the Court that the Accused is of unsound mind and hence, would not be able to make his defence.
It was opined that if it appears to the Court and there is a doubt raised in the mind of the Court regarding the unsoundness of the Accused, it becomes obligatory for the Court to try the said fact before proceeding with the trial. After applying judicial mind to the evidence (medical or any other) on record, the Court must record whether the Accused is of unsound mind or not.
In the present case, the Accused actively participated in the trial and answered all questions under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, no circumstance could indicate the unsoundness of the Accused. Hence, the Trial Court was right when it recorded that no enquiry under Section 329 was required.
Further, analyzing judicial precedent, the Bench observed that it is not necessary that every time a point is raised regarding mental incapacity, the Court should hold an elaborate enquiry. Only when the Court itself has serious doubt, a detailed and proper enquiry should be conducted.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the aforementioned reasons, the Kerala High Court refused to interfere with the Trial Court’s order and dismissed the CRL.MC.
Case Title: Yasin Sanu v. State of Kerala
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Babu
Case No: CRL.MC No. 1058 of 2023
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Sri Sharan Shahier, Rakhy Baby
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Sri. G. Sudheer (PP)
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
